The Khawajat Complex

By Dr Numan Gharaibeh

Fear of others may have evolutionary background as the survival of small bands of hunters and gathers (90% of human’s history) may have depended on it. However, we have outgrown much of our evolutionary baggage, and we’ll likely outgrow this as well. The age of conquest and domination seems to be over or at least replaced by economic dominance.

Most of the current Arab societies/states suffered from colonization. The era of subjugation by foreign powers started at least since the Ottomans moved from Anatolia south to occupy Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, and western Arabia between 1516 and 1517 CE (AD). Even before the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Egypt fell to Napoleon in 1789 then Britain in 1882. Algeria was under French occupation since 1830. Morocco’s occupation by France and Spain was completed in 1912 when the Sultan abdicated. After the end of the Ottoman rule in World War I, Arabs came under the rule of different European powers (Britain, France, Italy, and Spain) and some countries did not get independent until the 1970s. 

In Prospero and Caliban, Octave Mannoni attempted a psychological examination of the phenomenon of colonization and its effects on colonized and colonizer (or colonial). He emphasized the link between the “dependence complex” and the inferiority complex of the colored peoples [sic.] and viewed it as similar to the inferiority complex [in individuals, mind you] described by Alfred Adler. Mannoni opined that the greatest fear of the colonized was abandonment not dependence. In fact, he asserted that colonized people were happy to establish a dependent relationship with the colonial when there is a threat of abandonment. 

In the Arabic vernacular, the “Khawaja(t) complex” refers to a social phenomenon characterized by indiscriminate over-valuation of everything and everybody Western, European, or White—regardless of real or true value. The Khawaja(t) complex is usually conceptualized as a dialectical inferiority-superiority complex which manifests itself in the relationship between the stereotypical Arab (i.e. a hypothetical representative of the Arab crowd) and what/who is European, Western, or White. 

According to Gustav LeBon and Eric Fromm, a sociological investigation focuses on the character matrix common to most members of a group; it does not take into account the character structure of a particular individual. Although Alfred Adler is better known for his individual psychology, he acknowledged the universality of inferiority feelings [in individuals], but he reserved the term “complex” to the individual who self-hypnotizes, or self-deceives into feeling superior. One may assume that a nation may self-hypnotize or self-deceives itself into feeling superior.

Children’s formation of concepts and attitudes starts at birth—and some learning starts even in the womb. By internalizing the world of the parents, siblings, extended family, tribe, and so on, overtly or covertly, colored children start learning that Western things and persons are more worthy than local things and persons. Messages in the mass media including movies and TV as well as what is learned directly from older generations may reinforce these beliefs. The “role models” are Western role models (e.g. Cinderella, Snow White, Tarzan, The Little Mermaid, Rapunzel, etc.). 

Western technology is far advanced compared to Arab technology. There is very real superiority in the industrial machine in the West. There is cutting edge research and development that is also far advanced in the West. Manufacturing standards in the West are superior to the standards of local Arab countries. Therefore, it is only reasonable to expect Western goods to have higher quality than local goods. The accelerating pace of competition and the amount of money, time and effort invested in keeping an edge over competitors may prolong this differential.

Defeat and submissiveness that has plagued Arabs for the most part of this century. However, it is very hard to tease out the impact of 400 years of Ottoman oppression from the impact of the shorter-lived Western domination. The major difference between the Ottoman and British rules is the fact that the Ottomans were Muslims. In fact, the Ottomans have used that fact to gain favor among local tribes and promote acceptance among Arabs. Among the observant Muslims, the Ottoman Sultans are still viewed as the rightful successors of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs.

In summary, the causes for the Khawaja(t) complex are educational, factual reasons relating to superior Western technology and superior products, and historical (repeated colonization by foreign powers since at least 1516 CE (AD). The keys to eradicating this complex and preventing it from taking hold in future generations are education, economic development, and home grown role models to replace the Osamas and Saddams and their ilk.

Is Religious Education Psychological Cloning?

By Dr Numan Gharaibeh

Xenophanes suggested that men (yes, men) arbitrarily attributed human-like qualities to gods:
“But if cattle, or lions, or horses had hands….then the horses in drawing their gods would draw horses; and cattle would give us pictures and statues of cattle; and therefore each would picture the gods to resemble their own constitution. Aethiopian [sic.] gods–snubnosed [sic.] and black, Thracians—blue eyed and blond.” It certainly was (and is) an ancient genius insight by Xenophanes: we created gods in our image and not vice versa.

In a new millennium, a new century, and in the golden age of science and technology one would’ve expected religious fervor to start a gradual decline. Unfortunately, judging by the first 8 years of the new millennium, religious extremism does not seem to be declining. One would have liked the global financial system to have fared as well. How can we explain that (if at all possible)?

One clue to the answer is that in science and technology we no longer believe (and may laugh at) what we believed 50 years ago, while in religion people still believe what was believed 500 or even 5000 yeas ago. So, what is religion’s secret in immunizing itself against change?

Here is one clue. By the time most children reach at the age of abstract reasoning–the consensus is that it is by age 12, but one may argue as late as 20 or never in some cases–they typically would have gone through as many years of education and indoctrination. The process of education/indoctrination may have other names as well: instruction, acculturation, socialization, assimilation, tutoring, rearing, upbringing, etc. The essence, however, is the same, creating a future adult in our own psychological image: believing what we believe, behaving as we behave, and carrying on our legacy and tradition.

There is nothing more insulting to the mind than to ask of it not to reason at all. Reasoning is one of the defining attributes of the human mind, arguably it is what makes us who we are. To ask of the mind not to think and to blindly accept what it is being told is to ask it to stop acting as a mind. It might as well be a programmed computer. Children learn what are taught by the adults around them. They are trusting, innocent sponges who will absorb what typically they have no choice over, they trust adults because that’s what evolution had programmed them to do. They can’t go it alone, so they accept what is presented to them as facts. They are taught to believe in the unseen (they are told to call it faith). Children are taught the ideology of the parents and other grown ups, what is right and wrong, true or false, good and bad or evil, etc. By the time the child reaches an age of independent reasoning it is difficult to undo all the previous indoctrination.

Dawkins and Hitchens rightfully argued that indoctrination amounts to psychological/emotional child abuse. Correcting errors of logic (well-intentioned as they may have been), and undoing the harmful effects of dangerous instruction and negligent lack of instruction may be an extremely difficult task (or may be even impossible).

Deliberately creating an identical human to us with the same exact genes (i.e. same hardware) may be an ethical sin (or not), however, it is a greater injustice and more unethical to create an identical psychological copy (i.e. software) of ourselves. Unfortunately, while physical cloning is debated frequently by bioethicists, psychological cloning remains very acceptable (if not even encouraged). Where do we draw the line?

Our education becomes indoctrination and psychological cloning when we teach kids absolute obedience and submission, when we teach them to accept dogmatism without questioning, when we instruct them that doubt is a sin punishable by extreme forms of torture, when we neglect to teach them skepticism and free thinking, when we neglect teaching them alternative views, humanistic multicultural views, multinational views, scientific curiosity, when we neglect to teach them that looking for evidence is imperative and not a sign of being unfaithful. Yes, belief without evidence may be called faith but it may also be called brainwashing, psychological cloning, indoctrination and psychological abuse.

The Dependency Indoctrination of Arab Girls

By Dr Numan Gharaibeh*

Empowering Arab civil societies is doomed to fail without empowering 50% of the Arab societies (girls and women). Concepts such as empowerment, dependence, independence, autonomy, self-reliance, etc are tricky. They lend themselves of over-simplification and over-generalization and other black and white and extreme interpretation. Most humans don’t deal well with vague, slippery, and unclearly defined, or clearly undefined concepts. There is no absolute dependence or absolute independence, only a mix of different proportions of the two. Social and moral judgment—not known for its sophistication—has it that independence is “good,” and dependence is “bad.” Or to put it in relative terms, independence is better than dependence. However, a close examination of an average day reveals the depth of the problem of separating dependence from independence. We no longer hunt and gather our food; we simply go to the supermarket to buy it. After all we are not interested in going back to becoming hunters and gatherers. We are dependent on the supermarket, the gas company, the electric company, the phone company, endless manufacturers and so on.

For the sake of economy, I am focusing I this essay on the negative aspects of dependency when Arab girls are indoctrinated with it from a very early age. Indoctrination is another word that lends itself to misuse and misunderstanding as there is a fine line—very fine—between education and indoctrination. To reduce vagueness and be more illustrative, I shall use indoctrination to refer to dogmatic teaching that does not induce free thinking or skepticism in the learner; rather it induces obedience to the teacher’s scripture in the broadest sense of the word “scripture.” My intended focus is on indoctrinating Arab girls with passivity, helplessness, “being at the mercy of,” or dependent on males, teaching them to have no say and disempowering them by painting a future that is plagued with unhealthy dependence, and teaching them acceptance of the tremendous power differential that exists between male and female. 

It is unfortunate that even in the West (broadly defined), the female “role models” are presented in the children’s programs such as Cinderella, Snow White, Pocahontas, Tarzan, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and The Beast, Rapunzel, Thumbelina, The Nutcracker, and others is the that of the passive/dependent role. Girls are taught through these Disney characters that the heroine gets rescued by a handsome prince. All that she has to do is sit there and look pretty. Is this what we want to teach our daughters? Not only these heroines/role models are teaching passivity and dependence to young girls (west and east), but also they are sending them a clear message that they, independent of a male savior, are not worthy on their own, and that their biggest asset is their beauty. The female role model is frequently just a “model” and her prince is a male “model.” 

Movies and cartoons (including the supposedly family-friendly Disney ones) may be excused as entertainment. However, children’s books teach reading while sending an almost a constant message about the female roles that girls learning to read absorb the role of the passive beauty waiting for the knight with the shining armor on his white horse to save her (and don’t forget the sexualized overtones). Where are the female role models whom Arab girls can model themselves after; an independent, self-sufficient, ambitious woman who depends on her wits and hard work more than on her beauty? 

Another dimension to this male-dominant indoctrination is religious instruction. The three patriarchal religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam more or less share this male domineering indoctrination giving it the divine stamp of approval. These three monotheistic, Abrahamic, patriarchal religions all teach obedience and submission to the sill of the ultimate male, God himself. There is not a single doubt the God is a male. Not only that, but the talk of the lip service that this religion or that gives women equal rights and respect etc. is disingenuous. In Islam, just for example, the female gets from her parents half the inheritance that her brother is entitled to, the same thing in court, her testimony does not equal that of a man, she is to obey her husband, she is to accept being one of four wives etc. 

The message is loud and clear, you, the Arab girl, is inferior to your brother. What does that do to self-esteem on the long, one can only imagine.

*Numan Gharaibeh is the proud father of two daughters. He was born in Jordan, graduated from Jordan University of Science and Technology, in Irbid Jordan. He was trained in psychiatry at New York Medical College and forensic psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center/Harvard Medical School in Boston. He is currently working for the public sector in Danbury, Connecticut.